From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39920) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adglw-0003of-Rv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:15:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adglq-0007aG-VA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:15:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]:36519) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adglq-0007a0-Kv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:15:34 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id n186so186454571wmn.1 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:15:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:15:31 +0000 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20160309161531.GA7294@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <20160302112849.GD11268@stefanha-x1.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Performance Profiling 2 VMs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: kalyan tata Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:32:30PM -0800, kalyan tata wrote: > Thanks a lot for the quick reply Stefan >=20 > Following from problem VM: > 18:56:29 CPU %user %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal > %idle intr/s >=20 > 18:56:44 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 100.20 0.00 > 18:56:49 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.21 10.22 0.00 > 79.56 908.22 > 18:56:54 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.47 54.93 0.00 > 2.82 5527.77 > 18:56:59 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.04 66.06 0.00 > 2.21 7160.64 > 18:57:04 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.42 65.13 0.00 > 2.00 7295.99 > 18:57:09 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.53 50.51 0.00 > 4.04 5700.20 > 18:57:14 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.43 65.53 0.00 > 8.62 9572.34 > 18:57:19 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.45 60.64 0.00 > 4.02 5798.19 > 18:57:24 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.45 81.33 0.00 > 0.80 6064.26 > 18:57:29 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.65 85.11 0.00 > 0.80 7578.27 > 18:57:34 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.42 84.17 0.00 > 1.40 9083.97 > 18:57:39 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.78 82.83 0.00 > 1.60 7264.87 > 18:57:44 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.62 87.78 0.00 > 0.60 8597.80 > 18:57:49 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.02 82.16 0.00 > 2.40 7750.90 > 18:57:54 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.42 81.76 0.00 > 1.00 6303.41 > 18:57:59 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.63 87.35 0.00 > 1.20 9422.49 > 18:58:04 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.44 80.32 0.00 > 2.21 7496.79 > 18:58:09 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.43 59.84 0.00 > 26.91 5019.28 > 18:58:14 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 100.00 1.00 > 18:58:19 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 100.00 0.00 >=20 > I set the affinity of both tx and rx interfaces to cpu 1 so just showing > cpu1. >=20 > NAPI weight is 128 in this version, I changed to 64 just to see. This > version of the code seems to be changing quota and budget (which i did not > see in newer versions) I am thinking of playing around with that. > I also see that this version kicks for every packet on the tx side. There is nothing surprising in the output. It makes sense for a CPU-bound virtual networking workload. Perhaps someone else has ideas. Stefan --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJW4EwjAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIX6EIAITPq1IEar1IpxJbdPc7FP5t QkbwG9mdR4UhSSECKV7SeKkQhPRD0NPgjLnSMMM0R63hQDkIHJcH/KlS8lV3rzKb a8JS8f2tTwrNCoW0YWuB40wM8G/JviIYghN9Q6R/QBkwRWmiKkhqTzilhbqiVTe8 nAIiLExY+LGloARXI8ADTcHeqb6fAuRwkRt7Un5fnP9Ms6eOihxEYG3wYJmwcLP3 2bNvOby6Y8FeL50+E0nGQSdXlbcKpyhbUjAjrxqXVqKdVF/dApcuRFbHBLQaPuLS /6vaR+llYRaGweN5UgX+Yuzr63qdBMPLA2yVOIlYYkVdZ/Z4zuXervyrVsxVbew= =6po5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--